Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahaul Theek Hai


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahaul Theek Hai

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn film, fails WP:FILM Mayalld (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, also unsourced and written like blatant advertising . -- Jeandré, 2008-07-31t11:49z, -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t10:33z, -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:26z, -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:48z
 * May fail the wp:RS requirement of Notability (films) - I'm not an expert on the many new sources tho, but haven't seen an RS call the sources RSes. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:26z
 * Keep, The Times of India article: "super-hit film, mahaul theek hai". -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:48z
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a successful and highly notable Punjabi film, , . PC78 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by User:PC78. The article sure needs to be sourced though. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jeandré. Wikipedia is not IMDB. TruthGal (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Wikipedia is not IMDb. It is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." PC78 found sources to show notabilty, which the article lacked. Nom Mayalld's concern has been addressed. These sources and some judicious editing can be used to also address the concerns of Jeandré. Schmidt (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I have just done a quick job of it myself, using what PC78 provided... cleaning up the article's POV and adding external links. Please have a look and comment. Thank you, Schmidt (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know how reliable The Tribune and The Indian Express are - where are they on a scale from 10 (trusted newspapers of record) to 0 (small regional taboids)? If someone can show that the 2 newspapers are reliable sources (and update their WP articles' leads to show this), that should negate my vote. The 2 other sources don't seem to help with establishing film notability, and the IMDb entry doesn't have any box office or awards info. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-02t11:54z
 * Not being Indian nor being from India, I cannot answer to the reliabilty of those two publications... nor might a resident of Bombay be able to answer to the reliabilty of the Los Angeles Times. However, they are sources apparently are definitely read by their area's millions of viewers, and were offered to answer your concern of the article not being sourced. The IMDb was included only because it was supported by other sources. I am sure there are more sources out there. I'll see if I can find a neighbor who reads Farsi. I hope my own efforts to improve the style of the article were acceptable. Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... you provided your own answer in the links to the articles on Wiki. The Tribune has been publishing since 1881. No unreleiable regional tabloid has that record. The The Indian Express is an award winning paper that has been publishing since 1931. However, and in response to your question/suggestion, I have moved these EL's over to each of the two articles to further source each as being a major and respected newspaper in India, and as the links would indicate, the world: , , ,, , , , , , , , ,   Now that the two newspaper's articles have been updated to show them as being respected world-wide, I believe they should be accpted as Wiki:RS, and Wiki:N. And, going back up the chain, might you be able to accept them as sources showing notabilty for Mahaul Theek Hai? Schmidt (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A last word... I just spent a couple hours rewriting, citing, and sourcing the article. I invite any who voted for delete to take a look now and see it it stands up to scrutiny. Thanks all. Schmidt (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? I looked thru some of those links, and the sources at the newspaper articles, but none of them that I saw noted that they were newspapers of record, or regarded as particularly reliable. Some gave stats like establishment date or how popular they are which isn't relevant because newspapers change and tabloids are oftentimes the most popular papers. If someone can show that especially ref1: The New Indian Express is a wp:rs, my delete vote can be ignored by the closing admin. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t10:33
 * ??? I saw nothing in the article in Wiki about The Tribune or The Indian Express that said they were not notable or that they were not reliable. Your delete vote was based upon sourcing and the article's poor style. I have addressed both your concerns. With respect, I do not wish to debate the fine points of newspapers in general and their reliability (or not) through the decades or centuries of their existance. You are welcome to prod their articles in Wiki, if you feel they do not belong. This AfD is about a film's article. I have sourced the facts. The film exists. It has been seen by millions of viewers. It has received a great deal of press coverage. The director is a widely respected and admired member of his field. None of these facts are contentious. notability has been established. Since WP:RS stresses that a source must be considered for reliability "in relation to the subject at hand" and that this "depends on context", I have met that parameter. The facts in the article about Mahaul Theek Haihave been verified. I am sure the closing Admin will look at the article as now exists HERE and see that it bears little resemblance to the one that was originally placed in AfD HERE. Thank you. Schmidt (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeandré, what exactly are you looking for with these sources? There is no "seal of approval" that makes an individual publication "reliable" or not. The relevant section of WP:RS simply states: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market. I'm not familiar with the Indian media either, but The Tribune appears to be a major Indian publication, and as such would seem to fit the bill. PC78 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence "It is a major and respected Indian newspaper with a worldwide circulation." at The Tribune has 3 sources. The first 2 don't even mention the words "Tribune" or "Chandigarh". The 3rd has a link to which states that it's "popular", not "respected". -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:26z
 * My point is that it's a "mainstream news organization", there is no stipulation in WP:RS that we validate it via external sources. And nor should there be. Most news organizations have an inherant political bias, so you could probably discredit any source if you really wanted to. But that doesn't make then unreliable, i.e. unfit for use on Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that this AfD is about The Tribune, but I have just revisited that article to address the concerns of Jeandré. There are now 5 cites that specifically mention The Tribune or The Tribune Trust in relationship to Chandigarh or world publication. Of course, and back to this AfD, there are a number of cites and sources other than The India Tribune at the Mahaul Theek Hai article that address notability. Schmidt (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Following additional edits, this is clearly well-sourced and notable. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.